How New Fed Corporate Bond Programs Dampened the Financial Accelerator in the Covid-19 Recession
Michael D. Bordo
Rutgers University, National Bureau of Economic Research Hoover Institution, Stanford University
John V. Duca*
Oberlin College, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Economics Working Paper 20123
HOOVER INSTITUTION 434 GALVEZ MALL
STANFORD UNIVERSITY STANFORD, CA 94305-6010
November 2, 2020
In the financial crisis and recession induced by the Covid-19 pandemic, many investment-grade firms became unable to borrow from securities markets. In response, the Fed not only reopened its commercial paper funding facility but also announced it would purchase newly issued and seasoned bonds of corporations rated as investment grade before the Covid pandemic at spreads roughly 1 percentage point above non-recession averages. A careful splicing of different unemployment rate series enables us to assess the effectiveness of recent Fed interventions in these long-term debt markets over long sample periods, spanning the Great Depression, Great Recession and the Covid Recession. Findings indicate that the announcement of forthcoming corporate bond backstop facilities have capped risk premia at levels 100 basis points above non-recession averages, akin to a “penalty rate” for lender of last resort interventions during financial crises. In doing so, these Fed facilities have limited the role of external finance premia in amplifying the macroeconomic impact of the Covid pandemic. Nevertheless, the corporate bond programs blend the roles of the Federal Reserve in conducting monetary policy via its balance sheet, acting as a lender of last resort, and pursuing credit policies.
The Hoover Institution Economics Working Paper Series allows authors to distribute research for discussion and comment among other researchers. Working papers reflect the views of the authors and not the views of the Hoover Institution.
* We thank Marc Giannoni, Mickey Levy, Bob McCauley, Karl Mertens, Ned Prescott, and seminar participants at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas for useful suggestions. We thank Jonah Danziger for excellent research assistance. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas or the Federal Reserve System. Any remaining errors are those of the authors.
How New Fed Corporate Bond Programs Dampened the Financial Accelerator in the Covid-19 Recession Michael D. Bordo and John V. Duca Economics Working Paper 20123 November 2, 2020 Keywords: financial crises, Federal Reserve, credit easing, lender of last resort, corporate bonds, corporate bond facility JEL Codes: E51, E53, G12 Michael D. Bordo John V. Duca Rutgers University National Bureau of Economic Research Hoover Institution, Stanford University [email protected]
Oberlin College, Dept. of Economics, 223 Rice Hall, Oberlin, OH 44074 [email protected] Research Department Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas P.O. Box 655906, Dallas, TX 75265 [email protected]
Abstract: In the financial crisis and recession induced by the Covid-19 pandemic, many investment-grade firms became unable to borrow from securities markets. In response, the Fed not only reopened its commercial paper funding facility but also announced it would purchase newly issued and seasoned bonds of corporations rated as investment grade before the Covid pandemic at spreads roughly 1 percentage point above non-recession averages. A careful splicing of different unemployment rate series enables us to assess the effectiveness of recent Fed interventions in these long-term debt markets over long sample periods, spanning the Great Depression, Great Recession and the Covid Recession. Findings indicate that the announcement of forthcoming corporate bond backstop facilities have capped risk premia at levels 100 basis points above non-recession averages, akin to a “penalty rate” for lender of last resort interventions during financial crises. In doing so, these Fed facilities have limited the role of external finance premia in amplifying the macroeconomic impact of the Covid pandemic. Nevertheless, the corporate bond programs blend the roles of the Federal Reserve in conducting monetary policy via its balance sheet, acting as a lender of last resort, and pursuing credit policies. Acknowledgments: We thank Marc Giannoni, Mickey Levy, Bob McCauley, Karl Mertens, Ned Prescott, and seminar participants at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas for useful suggestions. We thank Jonah Danziger for excellent research assistance. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas or the Federal Reserve System. Any remaining errors are those of the authors.
1
In the financial crisis and recession induced by the Covid-19 pandemic, the ability of firms
and municipal governments to borrow from securities markets dried up, as did access by small and
mid-sized firms to bank loans. The massive credit squeeze risked seriously damaging the real
economy via a financial accelerator mechanism. This credit squeeze was manifest in a spike in the
corporate Baa-10-year Treasury bond yield spread, a long-standing measure of systemic risk (see
Figure 1). In response, the Fed not only reemployed all the new tools it created during the Great
Recession, but also greatly expanded its credit-easing and lender of last resort role in several ways.
This study focuses on one of them, namely the Fed’s announcement that it would buy newly
issued bonds of corporations rated as investment grade before the Covid pandemic at spreads
roughly 1 percentage point above non-recession averages. It did so with the explicit backing of the
Treasury, which covered any default losses on Fed purchases of such bonds. This novel policy was
not used in 2008 since without Treasury indemnification against losses, the Fed believed that the
riskiness of corporate bonds implied that it did not have the requisite authority. In addition, the
Fed in 2008 did not foresee the magnitude and impact of the severe widening of the corporate–
Treasury bond spread, whose peak reached highs not seen since 1935 (Duca 2017).1 As Figure 1
illustrates, the spread between yields on Baa-rated corporate and 10-year Treasury bonds (BaaTr)
in the recent crisis rose in line with the slightly lagging weekly insured unemployment rate until
the Fed announced its corporate bond program in late March 2020.
A careful splicing of different unemployment rate series enables us to better assess the
effectiveness of recent Fed interventions in the corporate bond market over a long sample that
spans the Great Depression through the Great Recession and the Covid-19 Recession. Findings
1 The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 reduced the Fed’s explicit authority to use 13-3 powers on its own and required
Treasury approval and backing for certain actions. The 2020 corporate bond market interventions have been in
accordance with the Dodd-Frank Act.
2
Figure 1: Yield Spread between Corporate Baa-rated and 10 Year Treasury Bonds Rise
with Insured Unemployment Rate Until the Fed Announced its Corporate Bond Facilities
(NBER recessions are shaded. Sources: Moody’s, Federal Reserve, and authors’ calculations)
indicate that the announcements of corporate bond backstop facilities have so far capped risk
premia on investment-grade bonds at levels that are about 100 basis points above pre-GFC
averages.2 Other results indicate that these facilities have lowered the excess bond premium
component of corporate bond yields ( Gilchrist and Zakrajsek 2012). By doing so, these programs
have limited the role of external finance premia in amplifying the macroeconomic impact of the
Covid pandemic and the risk that a panic-induced wave of corporate bankruptcies could worsen
the downturn and prolong the recovery from it. In this sense, the corporate bond interventions can
be seen as a new means by which the Fed pursues its full employment and price stability objectives
2 While the Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility (PMCFF) levies an explicit 100 basis point fee over a normal
spread when the Fed purchases newly issued paper, there is no explicit spread at which the Fed has purchased
previously issued bonds meeting maturity and ratings criteria under the Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility
(SMCCF). Consistent with the notion of a “penalty rate,” such pricing would discourage dependence on central
bank purchases or loans during more normal market conditions and could serve as a built-in exit strategy if this
pricing were made explicit and maintained. Most corporate bonds purchased by the Fed have been done through the
SMCCF and have been purchases of exchange-traded indexes of investment-grade bonds.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Corporate Baa-TR
spread (left axis)
Insured
Unemployment Rate
(right axis)
PercentPercent
Fed Announces
Corp. Bond
Facilities PMCFF
and SMCFF
3
rather than as an expansion of its mandate. As illustrated in Figure 2, a motivation for this new
tool is the rising importance of corporate bonds and the falling role of depository loans as sources
of external debt finance for nonfinancial corporations.3
To present our findings, our study is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the evolution
of the Fed’s response to prevent financial shocks from harming the economy via a financial
accelerator mechanism. Section 3 provides detail on the Fed’s announcement of two new corporate
bond-buying facilities. Section 4 lays out a basic framework for modeling corporate bond premia,
presenting monthly, annual, and weekly variants of these models. Section 5 discusses the data and
variables, some of which are novel and extend to the 1920s. Section 6 presents empirical results
and counterfactual simulations, and the conclusion provides a broader perspective on our findings.
Figure 2: The Rising Role of Bonds in Debt Finance for NonFinancial Corporations
(Sources: Financial Accounts of the U.S. and authors’ calculations)
3 The slight reversal of these trends in 2020:q1 reflected corporations tapping backup lines of credit to hoard
liquidity in the face of rising uncertainty, as noted by Levy (2020).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00 04 08 12 16 20
Corporate Bond Share of
Debt Securities + Loans
Depository Loan Share of
Debt Securities + Loans
percent
4
2. The Baa-Treasury Spread, Fed Policy in Crises, and the Financial Accelerator
The Baa-Treasury spread has long been used in analyzing the macro-economy and as a
gauge of financial crises dating back to at least Friedman and Schwartz (1963). Particularly since
Bernanke (1983), who used this variable to measure financial stress and the cost of credit
intermediation, the spread has been made more popular by the credit and financial frictions
literature, including other prominent studies by Bernanke, Gertler, and Gilchrist (1996, 1999),
Bordo (2008), Mishkin (1991), and Mishkin and White (2002).4 A major reason is that this spread
correlates well with banking panics, severe financial crises, extreme political shocks and other
events as shown by Bordo (2008).
The Federal Reserve was founded to provide financial stability, specifically to act as a
lender of last resort to prevent the kind of banking panics that plagued the national banking era
(1865 to 1914). The Fed was mandated to follow well-established central banking practice (Bordo
and Wheelock, 2011) and to lend freely on the basis of sound collateral (eligible bankers
acceptances or commercial paper). A rule of thumb for central banks’ lender of last resort policy,
based on British precedent, was Bagehot’s rule (1873) which stated that in the face of a banking
panic a central bank was to lend freely but at a penalty rate to solvent but liquid financial
institutions. Bagehot’s rule also has been interpreted as lending freely to the money market and
not to individual banks (Bordo 2014).
The Fed was successful in preventing a banking panic in 1920 (Gorton and Metrick 2013,
Tallman and White 2020) and the New York Fed successfully provided liquidity to the New York
money center banks during the October 1929 Wall Street Crash to prevent a panic (Friedman and
Schwartz 1963). However, the Fed was extremely very unsuccessful in preventing four banking
4 See Gilchrist and Zakrajsek (2012) for an important refinement in measuring credit spreads.
5
panics between 1930 and 1933. Friedman and Schwartz (1963) attributed the severity of the Great
Contraction 1929-1933 to the effects of the banking panics in cutting the money supply by a third.
Bernanke (1983) supported Friedman and Schwartz’s ‘money hypothesis’ but argued that the
banking failures propagated the depression by raising the cost of credit intermediation. The
disappearance of banks largely severed the link between saving and investment that they provided.
Bernanke‘s focus on credit rather than money led to the concept of the ‘financial
accelerator” (Bernanke, Gertler and Gilchrist, 1996 and 1999). A large financial shock leading to
a collapse of asset prices reduces the net worth of firms and households, which reduces the
collateral available for bank loans. Commercial banks reduce their lending which reduces
consumption by the household sector and investment by firms. This lowers real output and prices.
These forces in turn reduce net worth and bank lending. This process leads to debt defaults and
bankruptcies, which can lead to bank failures and further credit impairment. In addition, deflation
leads to Irving Fisher’s (1933) debt deflation, which further reduces net worth, amplifying the
downward spiral. Tightening credit conditions also affect non-bank financial intermediaries and
financial markets leading to a general collapse of credit. A key indicator of credit turmoil is the
Baa-10 year Treasury bond spread. It is viewed as picking up not only the effects of a credit crunch
leading to potential defaults, but also a shortage of liquidity as occurs in banking panics.
After the Great Contraction, important reforms to the Federal Reserve and the banking
system including the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and adding
Section 13.3 to the Federal Reserve Act greatly reduced the banking panic problem. Section 13.3
allowed the Federal Reserve System to lend to non- member banks and other institutions on the
basis of sound collateral in “unusual and exigent circumstances.” This section was designed to
overcome the severe restrictions on the Fed’s discount window lending during the Great
6
Contraction (Bordo and Wheelock 2011). Although there were several banking crises from the
1970s to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) these were not classic liquidity driven panics but rather
solvency crises (Bordo 2014). They were addressed by fiscal bailouts and not by lender of last
resort actions (Bordo and Meissner, 2016).
The Global Financial Crisis which began with a collapse in house prices and was centered
in the shadow banking system involved a massive credit crunch amplified by fears of
counterparties holdings of toxic financial derivatives based on mortgages of varying quality. This
fear was manifest in a spike in the Baa-Treasury spread as well as other spreads, such as the TED
spread (Libor-Treasury bill), the commercial paper – Treasury bill rate spreads, and the gap
between the 30-year mortgage and Treasury bond interest rates. The Fed initially viewed it as a
liquidity panic, and opened up and greatly expanded its discount window facilities to give an array
of financial institutions access to the discount window.
The credit crunch spread through the plumbing of the financial system to the repo market
in which banks funded themselves. This led the Fed to create facilities to unclog the arteries of the
financial system. In particular, via the Commercial Paper Funding Facility the Fed purchased
newly issued, top-grade paper and helped cap and then lower the paper-bill spread (Duca, 2013a).
The Fed also bought Aaa-rated short-term debt issued by lenders via the Term Asset-Backed
Securities Loan Facility, which helped keep lender funding costs and hence loan interest rates from
soaring (Agarwal, et al. 2010). Moreover, the tightening of credit set in motion the financial
accelerator mechanism that Bernanke (1983, 1995) outlined for the Great Contraction and for
which Bernanke and Gertler (1990) provided theoretical underpinnings. Such considerations led
the Fed to develop radical new facilities and purchase large quantities of mortgage-backed
securities (MBS) to keep credit flowing through the system.
7
As time went by, it became apparent that more important than a liquidity shortage was the
potential insolvency of the investment and universal banks that held the toxic derivatives in off
balance sheet special investment vehicles (SIVs). This problem was finally solved by the
recapitalization of the banks with TARP funds following a series of stress tests, both of which also
allayed fears of counterparty risk.
The March 2020 Covid-19 crisis had elements of both a liquidity crunch and a massive
credit crunch reminiscent of the GFC, as households cut back on their labor hours and consumption
in fear of contracting the virus and as firms cut back on investment and payrolls. This negative
impulse was greatly magnified by government-mandated lockdowns. The ensuing panic can be
seen as a spike in the Baa-Treasury bond spread. It became quickly apparent to the Fed that, in
addition to emergency fiscal spending, massive liquidity injections would be needed to prevent
not only widespread defaults, but also an unwinding of the network of credit and financial
accelerator effects that would amplify the downturn.
The Fed reestablished and extended its discount window and other financial “plumbing”
facilities developed in the GFC. The latter most prominently includes resuming the Commercial
Paper Funding Facility and the TALF, as well as again buying large quantities of MBS. The Fed
also engaged in new activities, specifically to prevent business defaults. Hence, it began to support
the corporate bond market through creating two new facilities, discussed in the next section. Other
novel facilities (backstopped by the Treasury) supported the municipal bond market (Municipal
Liquidity Facility) and bank loans to medium size companies bought or backed by the Fed’s new
Main Street Lending Facilities. As we show below the programs supporting the corporate bond
market—the focus of this study—were successful in preventing a further spike in the Baa–
Treasury bond spread. These actions likely mitigated and delayed a wave of corporate defaults that
8
the bankruptcy court and financial systems would otherwise be ill prepared to suddenly address.
3. An Overview of the Fed’s New Corporate Bond Facilities
Fed corporate bond interventions take the form of buying either newly issued investment-
grade bonds with maturities up to four years by its Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility
(PMCCF) or exchange-traded funds (ETFs) invested in seasoned investment-grade bonds with
remaining maturities under five years by its Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility
(SMCCF).5 Eligible debt is limited to that of U.S. firms with at least 95 percent of proceeds used
to support U.S. operations, and is limited to nonbanks and firms not receiving other federal aid
under the CARES Act of 2020.
To shield the Fed from investment losses both facilities are structured as special purpose
vehicles, with each funded by Treasury equity stakes of up to $50 billion for PMCCF and $25
billion for SMCCF. Debt held by the Fed funds the remainder using up to 10:1 leverage for buying
investment grade bonds or syndicated loans that are investment grade at time of purchase.
Portfolio exposure to any one company is limited to 10% of an issuer’s maximum historical
outstanding bonds and to 1.5 percent of combined PMCCF and SMCCF assets. There is a
combined size limit of $750 billion on the PMCCF and SMCCF, with both initially expiring on
September 30, 2020, but later extended to expire at yearend 2020. The PMCFF can buy newly
issued eligible bonds at spreads over comparable maturity Treasuries in a range (minimum and
maximum) based on credit rating and prevailing spreads over comparably rated bonds at the time
of PMCFF purchase plus one percentage point for a facility fee. While the pricing guidelines for
the SMCFF are less explicit, that facility has bought investment grade ETFs when the corporate
5 Also eligible are bonds from companies that are rated one notch below investment grade that were investment
grade just before the Covid pandemic hit the U.S.
9
Baa-Treasury spread has exceeded 300 basis points. This is about 100 basis points above the
historical average from 1970 up until the global financial crisis of 2007-09.
Quite notably the Baa-Treasury spreads stopped rising on March 23, 2020 when the Fed
announced that it would set up the PMCFF and SMCFF. Furthermore, the subsequent purchases
by the Fed were under 50 billion by the end of June 2020—far below the limits on the size of the
facilities (see Table 1)—with the vast bulk being purchases of ETFs by the SMCFF. Instead of
reflecting a balance sheet effect (as with QE), this pattern reflects a strong “backstop” effect from
announcing the facility by a central bank having a great ability to expand its balance sheet, with
an announcement effect evident seven weeks ahead of the Fed’s initial corporate bond purchase.
4. A Model of the Baa-Treasury Spread
The main corporate spread investigated is the gap between yields on Baa-rated corporate
bonds (Moody’s) and on long-term U.S. government bonds.
4.1. Modeling the Baa-Treasury Spread Over 1929-2020
The Baa corporate yield is available continuously on a monthly basis since 1919, along
with the Aaa-rated yield series. Of these two, the Baa is more interesting and relevant because few
firms are rated Aaa (only two in 2020)—making the Baa more relevant to the cross-section of
firms— and because the impact of financial frictions on firm activity tends to be greater for firms
that are not as resilient as Aaa-rated firms. The series on long-term Treasury yields is an update of
a series on the 10-year Treasury yield spliced by Duca (2017) from three series on government
yields. As shown in Figure 3, this spread (BaaTr) widens in recessions, especially in the Great
Depression, Great Recession, and the Covid Recession. In addition, the corporate Baa spread tends
to be coincident with business cycle peaks and troughs (Duca, 1999), consistent with new evidence
in this study that a consistently measured monthly unemployment rate (UR, discussed in Section
10
Table 1: The Fed’s Balance Sheet in July 2020
(Source: Federal Reserve Board)
5) has tended to move with the BaaTR spread since the late 1920s, as illustrated in Figure 3. The
effect is more nonlinear in nature, with a stronger correlation between the spread with the square
of the unemployment rate than with the level, plausibly reflecting the tail risk nature of defaults
and default risk on Baa-rated bonds.
Before the Fed announced its new corporate bond facilities, this corporate-Treasury spread
mainly reflected a combination of not only measurable cyclical and secular risks for corporate debt
and shifts in the conduct of monetary policy, but also of hard-to-forecast shocks to liquidity, default
risk, and risk aversion. Time series measures or proxies for each type of factor are limited by data
availability and endogeneity.6 Cyclical risks are proxied by the square of the unemployment rate
6 For example, widespread central bank interventions prevent using the commercial paper bill spread (Friedman and
Kuttner) after 2007 or using corporate spreads for tracking risk in modeling commercial paper (Duca, 2013) or
municipal-Treasury spreads after February 2020. Endogeneity concerns also raise doubts about using the yield curve
Federal Reserve System Assets (July 7, 2020)
Credit and Liquidity Programs FRS Assets (bil.) Max. Size
New Post-Covid Programs
Corporate Bond 43 750
Municipal Liquidity 16 500
Paycheck Protection Program 68 Unlimited
Main Street Lending 38 600
Reopened Pre-Covid Programs
Term Asset Backed Securities 9 100
Commercial Paper Funding 13 Unlimited
Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity 19 Unlimited
Primary Dealer Credit 2 Unlimited
Much Larger Asset Categories FRS Assets (bill.)
Total Securities 6,145
Treasuries 4,231
MBS 1,911
Memo: Total Reserve Bank Credit 6,881
11
Figure 3: Since the Great Depression, Corporate-Treasury Bond Yield Spread Moves with
the Unemployment Rate Until the Fed Announced its Corporate Bond Facilities
(NBER recessions are shaded. Sources: Moody’s, Federal Reserve, and authors’ calculations)
(UR2), which is expected to be positively correlated with BaaTR.
That correlation, however, is affected by a major shift following the failure of the Penn
Central railroad in April 1970 (PennCentral =1 since then, 0 before), which Jaffee (1975) also
found significant. This failure marked a major shift in historical behavior that plausibly affected
investor’s assessment of the cyclical risk of investment-grade bonds because between 1941 and
Penn-Central’s failure in 1970, there were no defaults by investment-grade corporations (Jaffee
(1975, p. 310), and Moody’s (2007, p. 15), but 16 in the next 20 years. Further evidence of a quiet
period between 1951 and June 1970, was that this period had only 17 defaults by speculative-rated
corporations. It was followed by 342 defaults in the following 20 years. The period since Penn-
as long-term Treasury yields directly affect its slope and the base off which corporate and muni spreads are measured.
In addition, the large QE purchases of long-term securities since 2008 affect the consistency of the yield curve over
time. The post-2007 Fed balance sheet also limits the usefulness of the TED spread as the high excess reserves used
to fund Fed bond holdings limits the ability of the TED spread to track more general market risk premia.
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Percent
Baa - 10 yr.
Treasury
Spread
Darby
Adjusted
Unemp.
Rate
Fed
Announces
Corp Bond
Facilities
Percent
12
Central’s default is marked less by an upward level shift in the Baa spread and more by an
increased amplitude of swings in the spread—i.e., an increased sensitivity of the spread to the
business cycle (which is proxied by the squared unemployment rate in this study). This increased
sensitivity persisted through the Great Moderation era (1984-2006) and past the Great Recession
of 2007-09. While the increased amplitude of swings in the spread are somewhat correlated with
defaults, it is unclear how much they reflect liquidity versus solvency risk.
Secular shifts in corporate debt risk can be tracked by either major and long-lasting changes
in regulations and the conduct of monetary policy, or by time trends. The latter provides little
insight and coefficient estimates on time trends can reflect omitted variable bias from not
controlling for other factors. With respect to the former, we found two significant upshifts in the
Baa corporate spread after WWII. The first is related to the conduct of monetary policy associated
with the Treasury-Fed Accord of 1951. From the start of our sample up to the Accord, the long
Treasury yield was constrained by 0 from below in the Great Depression era or by the pegging of
the long-Treasury yield from 1942 to March 1951. As a result, there was less counter-cyclical
monetary policy implying higher default risk before the Accord. Indeed, we find that a monetary
policy regime shift dummy (PreAccord = 1 before March 1951, 0 otherwise) is associated with a
higher range of the spread—i.e., an upward shift in the constant in a model of the spread. We tested
for other shifts related to monetary policy, but limits to the length of samples—such as the short
period of the Gold Standard Convertibility (April 1929-December 1933) or money supply
targeting (October 1979-October 1982)—hindered our ability to detect level shifts in BaaTR or
shifts in its sensitivity to the unemployment rate. We did, however, find a large negative impact
effect of the suspension of gold convertibility and the devaluation of the dollar in December 1933
on the change in BaaTR in our monthly model.
13
The second major secular shift in BaaTR that we detected was an upshift in December
2000, when Congress approved the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA). As Bolton
and Oehmke (2015) and Stout (2011) show, the CFMA exempts derivatives counterparties from
the automatic stay in bankruptcy, enabling immediate collection from a defaulted counterparty,
giving them a senior claim over most other bankruptcy claimants. The passage of CFMA was
quickly followed by a surge in credit default swaps (Duca and Ling, 2020). By giving bankruptcy
priority to derivatives (mainly credit default swaps), the CFMA lowered the priority of bond
investors and made bonds riskier (see Bolton and Oehmke 2015). We find that a shift dummy
(CFMA =1 since December 2000, = 0 otherwise) captures an upward level shift in the corporate-
Treasury yield spread.7
These considerations yield two specifications for econometrically modeling the
equilibrium corporate Baa-Treasury spread, one using shift variables and the other a time trend:
BaaTR*t = α0 + α1 URt
2 + α2 PennCentralt x URt2 + α3PreAccord + α4CFMAt (1)
BaaTR*t = α0 + α1 URt
2 + α5Trendt (2)
where each coefficient αi has an expected positive sign. According to stationarity tests (Appendix
B), BaaTR is not stationary at annual and monthly frequencies, with borderline results at a weekly
frequency, while UR is not stationary at a weekly frequency but is it is borderline whether UR is
stationary at annual and monthly frequencies. The first difference in each is stationary. Owing to
their construction, the two level-shift variables, PreAccord and CFMA, are nonstationary.
Accordingly, we estimate (1) and (2) with monthly and annual data from 1929-early 2020
using a cointegration approach (Johanssen’s (1995)) and for each, jointly estimate the long-run
7 The CFMA era is also marked by greater international portfolio holdings of safe assets, such as long-term Treasuries,
that may push down Treasury yields relative to corporate Baa yields.
14
level and the short-run change. The latter first difference equation includes an error-correction
term (the t-1 gap between the actual and equilibrium spread), lags of first differences of all the
variables in the long-run equilibrium relationship and a vector X of exogenous event shocks. The
inclusion of the exogenous shock variables is needed to yield uncorrelated residuals in the first
difference model and has little effect on the estimated coefficients of the long-run (equilibrium)
relationship. For our preferred second model (eq. (1)), we estimate:
BaaTRt = α0 + α1 URt2 + α2 PennCentralt x URt
2 + α3PreAccordt + α4CFMAt (3a)
ΔBaaTRt = β0 + β1ECt-1 + ∑ni=1 β2iΔBaaTRt-i + ∑n
i=1β3iΔURt-i2 + ∑n
i=1β4i Δ[PennCentralt-i xURt-i2]
+ ∑ni=1β5iΔPreAccordt-i + ∑ n
i=1β6iΔCFMAt + ΩXt, (3b)
where EC t-1 ≡ BaaTR t-1 - BaaTR*t-1, lag lengths are chosen to minimize the SIC, X is a vector of
exogenous shock variables, Ω is a vector of coefficients for the X vector of shocks and the
estimation allows for time trends in each of the variables in the long-run equation but not a trend
in the long-run relationship. (The corresponding model for eq. (2) omits the long-run shift variables
and allows for a time trend in the cointegrating relationship). The estimated coefficient β1 on the
error-correction term is expected to be negative (so that the actual spread converges toward its
equilibrium level), with the absolute magnitude implying the speed of error-correction for the
frequency of the model data. Note that the model implicitly imposes an almost instantaneous
reaction of the corporate bond yield to the long-term Treasury yield, reflecting the Treasury yield’s
role as a benchmark rate. The speed of error-correction (i.e., the speed at which the spread adjusts),
really reflects lags in how the perceived relative risk and degree of risk aversion for Baa-rated
corporate bonds adjust in response to the business cycle and the regime shifts. The latter involve
15
the failure of the Penn Central railroad, the Treasury-Fed Accord and the CFMA-related shift in
the bankruptcy priority and relative risk of Baa-rated corporate versus Treasury bonds.
Equations (3a) and (3b) comprise a baseline, long-sample model of the corporate-Treasury
yield spread before the Fed announced in late March 2020 that it would intervene by buying mainly
investment grade corporate bonds. If the Fed prevents the spread from rising past a threshold, its
policy intervention breaks the normal equilibrium relationship. This can be easily be seen in
Figures 1 and 3. Accordingly—and as discussed in more detail later on--for samples extending
past February 2020, we adjust the baseline equation to allow for either a level shift in the
equilibrium spread or a change in the impact of the unemployment rate on the spread.
4.3. Modeling the Corporate-Treasury Yield Spread with Higher Frequency Data 1971-2020
Given the short post-Covid sample, using higher frequency weekly data has the advantage
of helping identify the effects of the pandemic and Fed interventions into the corporate bond
market, but at the disadvantage of not spanning pre-1971 data. The weekly models have the
advantages of using unemployment data that have not been spliced and avoid the need to control
for regime shifts other than CFMA. Accordingly, the weekly specification simplifies to:
BaaTRt = α0 + α1 x UR2t + α4CFMAt (4a)
ΔBaaTRt = β0 + β1ECt-1 + ∑ni=1β2iΔBaaTRt-i + ∑n
i=1 β3iΔ(URt-i)2] + ∑ n
i=1β4iΔCFMAt + ΩXt (4b)
5. Data and Variables
Details on the unemployment rate and exogenous shock terms are described below as the
dependent variable, BaaTR, and the CFMA variable were discussed earlier.
5.1 Unemployment Rate
The main cyclical variables used in this study are variants of the civilian unemployment
rate for monthly and annual models, and or the weekly, insured unemployment rate from the initial
16
claims for unemployment report. Annual unemployment data are from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) that the BLS derived from the monthly household survey since 1948 and from
other Census surveys for earlier years. However, the readings from 1933 to 1943 are adjusted for
time-varying employment in special Depression-era federal job-creation programs that were
excluded from the calculation of the official unemployment rate. Adjustments use estimates from
Darby (1976), who showed that official statistics from this period are not comparable with readings
from other periods, and notably overstate unemployment in the mid- and late-1930s. As discussed
in Appendix A, monthly readings on unemployment are adjusted building off Darby’s estimates,
but also for several breaks in data sources before 1948. Monthly data from the household survey
spanning January 1948-present are spliced with 1940-47 data from an earlier Census survey and
with 1929-39 data from the Conference Board.
For weekly models of the Baa-Treasury spread our main cyclical variable is based on the
weekly, insured unemployment rate from the weekly initial claims report, available since 1971.
By itself, the raw series has not consistently moved over time with the monthly unemployment
rate, as stressed by Cleary, Kwok, and Valletta (2009). The major reason is that is the taxation of,
and eligibility for, UI benefits has moved over time, as have the regional and unionized
composition of employment which have affected the proclivity of the employed to file for benefits
and count in the weekly unemployment rate series. To address this we multiply the seasonally
adjusted weekly series by the centered, 12-week moving average of the ratio of the weekly
unemployment rate to the monthly unemployment rate from the household survey.8 While the
adjusted and unadjusted weekly unemployment rates are each significantly related to (cointegrated
with) the Baa-Treasury spread and with the actual spread significantly error-correcting toward its
8 The smoothing of the adjustment parameter limits noise in the weekly, and to a lesser extent in the monthly series.
17
equilibrium value, the adjusted series yields short-run residuals that are not significantly correlated
in contrast to residuals from a model of the unadjusted series.
5.2 Monthly Exogenous, Shock Variables
Aside from the failure of Penn-Central in 1971 which enters the models interacted with the
unemployment rate, there are five major monthly shocks that are added to the corporate bond
market. Of these, four occur during the Great Depression and three of these reflect temporary, but
large effects of bank failures and crises on the Baa-Treasury spread in an era predating deposit
insurance and an aggressive lender of last resort approach by the Fed. One shock is the failure of
the Bank of the U.S. in December 1931. This was the largest bank failure in the U.S. at that time
and triggered a temporary surge followed by a fall back in the Baa-Treasury spread. To control for
this outsized double-event, we include a dummy variable, USBankFail, which equals 1 in
December 1931, -1 in January 1932 and 0, otherwise.
Another similar variable, QE1932, equals 1 in April 1932 when the Fed began conducting
a quantitative easing-like program of purchasing long-term Treasuries, which notably pushed
down long-term Treasury rates (Bordo and Sinha, forthcoming), thereby widening the BaaTR
spread. Otherwise, this variable equals 0, except for equaling -1 in August 1932, just after the Fed
announced a cessation to this QE precursor, which let long-term Treasury rates rise, narrowing the
spread. The third Great Depression era bank crisis dummy controls for the banking crisis of early
1933 (BkCrisis33), which triggered a jump in the Baa-Treasury spread in March 1933 that did not
reverse until May 1933, just after solvent banks were publicly certified during the Bank Holiday
of 1933. To control for this third temporary spike, the dummy variable BkCrisis33 is included
which equals 1 in March 1933, -1 in May 1933, and zero otherwise. The fourth Great Depression
variable controls for the sharp decline in the Baa-Treasury spread in December 1933 (DGold34 =
18
1 in January 1934, 0 otherwise), when the U.S. devalued the dollar relative to gold, signaling that
monetary policy would be less constrained by the gold standard and better able to have a counter-
cyclical effect, thereby reducing corporate bond default risk.9 To control for the outsized effect on
corporate bond spreads of Lehman’s failure in late September 2008, we include a fifth and last
shock variable is dummy equal to 1 in October 2008, shortly after, and 0, otherwise.10
5.3 Annual Shock Variables
Annual models include three shock terms. The first is a dummy (BankFail3132 = 1 in
1931 and 1932, and 0 otherwise) to control for the unexpected onset of large bank failures in an
era lacking deposit insurance and a sound lender-of-last resort strategy by the Federal Reserve
(e.g., see Bordo (2014, p. 130). The second, Gold1934, is a dummy (= 1 in 1934, and 0 otherwise)
to control for the devaluation of dollar in 1934 and end of convertibility, that enhanced the ability
of counter-cyclical monetary policy and lowered corporate default risk. The last control, Lehman,
is a dummy equal to 1 only in 2008 (0, otherwise) to control for the outsized jump in the Baa-
Treasury spread during the year of Lehman’s failure that also included the federally assisted sale
of Bear Stearns and the full onset of the Global Financial Crisis.
5.4 Weekly Shock Variables
In parallel with the monthly models, the set of exogenous variables for the weekly, post-
1970 model includes a dummy for the failure of Lehman (DLehman = 1 for the week of September
19 and 0, otherwise). However, three other short-run controls need to be added for the short-run
model to avoid having serially correlated errors. Two are dummies for the 1987 stock market crash
9 The negative sign on DGold34 that we estimate suggests that this countercyclical factor appears to have offset a
potential countervailing positive effect on the spread from increased uncertainty about how much bonds were worth
following the abrogation of gold clauses in debt contracts when the US left the gold standard in 1933. This was very
controversial at the time and was not resolved until a Supreme court decision in 1935 (see Edwards. 2018). 10 Several potential geo-political shocks that could alter the spread proved insignificant, such as dummies for the start
of WWII in Europe, the fall of France in June 1940, and the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. Other dummies
for the Fed’s raising of reserve requirements in 1936 and 1937 were insignificant.
19
(StockCrash87 =1 in the week of October 23, 1987 and 0, otherwise) and the September 2001
terrorist attacks (D911 =1 in the week of September 13, 2001, and 0, otherwise). The estimated
coefficients are expected to be positive reflecting likely increases in corporate default and liquidity
risk during these two crises. The third shock variable is for Standard and Poors’ 2011 downgrading
of U.S. Treasury debt from Aaa to Aa (USDGrade = 1 in the week of August 12, 2011, and 0,
otherwise). Since the unexpected downgrade would likely push up yields on Treasuries relative to
those on other debt securities, the estimated coefficient on USDGrade is expected to be negative.
The exclusion of the complete set of exogenous shocks results in a long-run model yielding a
unique and significant cointegrating vector having similar coefficients and a short-run model with
a similar estimated and significant speed of error-correction. The only notable difference is that
the errors are serially correlated when these shock variables are omitted.
6. Estimation Results
Models of the corporate Baa-Treasury spread are estimated using data spanning two sample
periods: 1929 – 2020 for monthly and annual linear models and 1971 – 2020 for weekly and
monthly nonlinear models. The advantage of the long sample is that it spans the Great Depression.
The shorter sample, weekly models have more observations to assess the impact of the Covid
pandemic and the Fed interventions into the bond markets. In the models highlighted in the text,
the unemployment rate terms are set to zero after the Fed announced bond market interventions,
which essentially shutdown the impact of unemployment on the spread.
6.1 Monthly and Annual 1929-early 2020 before the Fed Corporate Bond Market Interventions
Results from estimating monthly and annual models with data starting in 1929 are reported
in Table 1. These models include the PennCentral shift in the cyclicality of the spread and the
Treasury-Fed Accord and CFMA shift level shift terms in the long-run model, and the set of shock
20
terms in the X vectors described in Section 3.2. The Schwartz Information Criterion selected lag
lengths on lagged first differences in the short-run model of 6 for the monthly model (1/2 year)
and one for the annual model. Annual Models 1 and 2 exclude and include annual shock variables.
Monthly Models 3 and 4 parallel Models 1 and 2 over a pre-Covid sample (Nov. 1929 - Feb. 2020),
while Models 5 and 6 do so over a sample spanning the early Covid downturn (Nov. 1929-July
2020) with the distinction that they both zero out the unemployment rate channel after the Fed
announced corporate bond interventions (discussed in Sub-Section 6.4). In all cases, significant
and unique cointegrating relationships are found. In the models with full controls, the shock
variables have the expected signs and are generally significant and including these shock terms is
needed for the residuals of short-run models to avoid being serially correlated. On these grounds,
the models with the shock terms (Models 2, 4, and 6) are preferred. Of these, for the pre-Covid
samples the annual (Model 2) and monthly (Model 4) models have similar estimated long-run
relationships and adjustment speeds:
BaaTRt = 1.070 + 0.004 x URt2** + 0.018 [PennCentralt x URt
2]** (Annual Model) (5)
(0.001) (0.003)
+ 0.532 PreAccordt** + 0.628 CFMAt
** Speed of adjustment: 0.45/year
(0.171) (0.143)
BaaTRt = 1.042 + 0.005 x URt2** + 0.014 [PennCentralt x URt
2]** (Monthly Model) (6)
(0.001) (0.002)
+ 0.423 PreAccordt** + 0.795 CFMAt
** Speed of adjustment: 0.47/year
(0.157) (0.135)
where absolute standard errors are in parentheses, * (**) denotes significant at the 95 (99) percent
confidence level, the annual model is estimated using data from 1929-2019, and the monthly model
is estimated with data from April 1929 to February 2020.
In each model in Table 1, the long-run coefficients are all significant with the expected
signs. The positive coefficients on the Pre-Treasury Fed Accord and CFMA long-run effects are
21
notable and imply a need to account for regime shifts affecting long-run spreads. The coefficient
and standard error on the squared unemployment rate interacted with the Penn-Central level shift
dummy indicate a statistically and economically significant increase in the cyclicality of the Baa-
Treasury spread since the failure of Penn-Central. This supports the view that this bankruptcy
spurred a reassessment of the cyclical risk of investment-grade bonds, which had not seen a default
in nearly 20 years prior and that the default was the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history at its time.
Of the even-numbered models having short-run shock terms, the corrected R2’s for the
short-run model portions range between 0.44 and 0.48, which are reasonable for models of the
first-difference of a spread. In addition, the error-correction terms are significant with the expected
negative sign and imply sensible speeds at which the Baa-Treasury spread adjusts to its long-run
equilibrium. In particular, the estimated coefficients from models with shock terms imply that 44
to 48 percent of the gap between the actual and equilibrium level of the corporate-Treasury spread
is corrected in a year. As expected, the dummies for the failure of the Bank of the U.S., the Fed’s
short-lived QE experiment in 1932, and Lehman’s demise were positive and significant, while the
December 1933 change in the gold standard had a significantly negative effect.
6.2 Common 1971-Feb. 2020 Sample before the Fed Corporate Bond Market Interventions
Results from estimating monthly and weekly models with post-1970 samples are reported
in Table 2. Owing to their later sample start, these models omit the Great Depression, Treasury-
Fed Accord, and PennCentral variables. Of the three weekly models, Models 1 and 2 exclude and
include a set of weekly shock variables over a pre-Covid sample, while Model 3 includes that set
plus some Covid controls and shuts down the unemployment channel after the Fed announced its
corporate bond interventions discussed later. The set of exogenous dummy shock terms include
controls for the stock market crash of 1987 (DStock87), the September 2001 terrorist attack
22
(D911), the failure of Lehman (DLehman), and Standard and Poor’s 2011 debt ceiling-related
downgrade of U.S. Treasuries (DUSDGrade). Paralleling the weekly models, three monthly
models (4-6) are reported in Table 2, the first of which (Model 4) omits the controls over a pre-
Covid sample. Model 5 is also estimated over this sample and to Model 4 only has the Lehman
failure dummy among its shock variables as this is the only post-1971 shock from the 1929-2020
monthly model. Model 6 adds Covid controls to Model 5, shuts down the unemployment rate
channel after the Fed’s announced its corporate bond programs, and is estimated through July
2020. The Schwartz Information Criterion selected lag lengths on lagged first differences in the
short-run model of 6 for the monthly model and 12 for the weekly model.
For both data frequencies, we identify a significant and unique long-run cointegrating
relationship in each model and the corresponding short-run models have uncorrelated residuals.
For the pre-Covid sample models with short-run controls (Models 2 and 5), estimated long-run
coefficients and speeds of adjustment error-correction are significant and similar:
BaaTRt = 1.469 + 0.0121 UR2t** + 0.6554 CFMAt
** Speed of adjustment: 0.086/mon.
(0.0034) (0.1432) ≈ 66% per year (Monthly Model 5) (7)
BaaTRt = 1.368 + 0.0136 UR2t** + 0.7381 CFMAt
** Speed of adjustment: 0.073/month
(0.0031) (0.1383) ≈ 56% per year (Weekly Model 2) (8)
For the two models with short-run controls that are estimated over the pre-Covid sample,
the short-run weekly model (Model 2) of the first difference of the spread does not fit as well as
the monthly model (Model 5), having a corrected R2 of 0.11 versus 0.27 for the monthly model.
This smaller fit likely reflects the greater noise in the weekly spread, consistent with the view that
corporate bonds are not as thickly traded as are Treasuries. Nevertheless, the error-correction terms
are significant with the expected negative sign and imply sensible speeds at which the Baa-
23
Treasury spread adjusts to its long-run equilibrium. In particular, the estimated coefficient from
the monthly model implies that 66 percent of the gap between the actual and equilibrium level of
the corporate-Treasury spread is corrected in nearly one year, while the estimated coefficient from
the weekly model implies that about 56 percent of the gap is corrected within a year. As expected
for short-run shock terms, the estimated coefficients on DLehman, StockCrash87, and D911 are
significant and positive while that for USDGrade is negative and significant.
6.3 Pre-Covid Long-Run Trends in the Baa-Treasury Spread
Before the Covid pandemic hit the U.S., the estimated equilibrium generally trends with
the actual spread, with upward spikes during periods of heightened risk that are hard to predict or
forecast. This is illustrated in Figure 4, which plots the actual monthly spread with the predicted
values from the long- and short-sample monthly models. Notice how much the equilibrium
exceeds the actual if its estimated coefficients are applied to the post-February 2020 period, which
is more easily seen in Figure 5, which plots data since 2000. The model using data back to the
Great Depression indicates that pre-Covid patterns implied a peak of 6.0 percent in the spread with
a less elevated peak of 4.7 percent using the post-April 1971 monthly model. These readings are
2.5 and 1.2 percentage points above the actual peak in April 2020, respectively, and provide a
loose gauge of the range of effects of the Fed’s announced interventions in the corporate bond
market—measured by the more normal cyclical response of spreads but lacking a gauge or other,
more liquidity, effects of the pandemic. Similar exercises using the weekly model yield an implied
equilibrium path (not shown) very close to that implied by the monthly model estimated over the
same time span (May 1971 to February 2020) shown by the red lines in Figures 3 and 4. This
exercise presumes that the pre-Covid patterns would have prevailed absent the Fed’s announced
interventions into the corporate bond market. As shown in Figure 6, this assumption is supported
by the patterns in higher frequency weekly data, which show the Baa-Treasury bond spread
24
Figure 4: Equilibrium Spreads Track Actual Baa-Treasury Spreads until March 2020
(NBER recessions are shaded. Sources: BLS, NBER Macro-History Database, Moody’s, Federal
Reserve, and authors’ calculations)
Figure 5: Pre-Covid Relationships Imply a Sharper Jump in the Corporate-Treasury Bond
Yield Spread Than Was Seen Since March 2020 (NBER recessions are shaded. Sources: BLS,
NBER Macro-History Database, Moody’s, Federal Reserve, and authors’ calculations)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Percent
Baa - 10 yr.
Treasury
Spread
Estimated
Equilbrium
Nov. 1929-
Feb. 2020
Fed
Announces
Corp Bond
Facilities
Estimated
Equilbrium
May 1971-
Feb. 2020
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Percent
Baa - 10 yr.
Treasury
Spread
Estimated
Equilbrium
Nov. 1929-
Feb. 2020
Fed
Announces
Corp Bond
Facilities
Estimated
Equilbrium
May 1971-
Feb. 2020
25
Figure 6: In 2020, Yield Spreads Rise with Insured Unemployment Rate Until
the Fed Announced its Corporate Bond Facilities
(NBER recessions are shaded. Sources: BLS, NBER Macro-History Database, Moody’s, Federal
Reserve, and authors’ calculations)
moving in line with the weekly insured unemployment rates in February and March 2020, up until
the Fed’s announcement of corporate bond purchases.
6.4. Assessing Covid and Fed Bond Market Intervention Effects on the Bond Spread
Figures 1, 2, and 3 strongly suggest that the Fed’s announced intervention into the
corporate bond market had a pronounced effect on the corporate-Treasury spread, essentially
altering the relationship between the unemployment rate and the spread. When the monthly and
weekly models are estimated over samples through July 2020, the estimated coefficients on the
unemployment rate fall and lose significance. Moreover, models with no Covid and Fed
intervention adjustments are unable to yield both a significant and unique long-run relationship
and serially uncorrelated residuals in the short-run models of the change in the spread. Simply
adding a Covid level shift term or a Fed bond market-intervention term to the long-run relationship
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Corporate Baa-TR
spread (left axis)
Insured
Unemployment Rate
(right axis)
PercentPercent
Fed Announces Corp.
Bond Facilities
PMCFF and SMCFF
(week ending Mar. 28)
26
is not feasible as the lag length needed to estimate the model exceeds or is close to exceeding the
number of observations since these events.
To adjust the framework to gauge the effects of the pandemic and the Fed interventions,
we make two changes when estimating the models through the end of July 2020. First, we shut
down the feedback from the unemployment rate to the spread after the Fed’s announced
intervention (which is generally the intent of the intervention). To do this in the long-sample
monthly model, we multiply both of the squared unemployment variables by a discrete interaction
dummy (FedxBond) that equals 1 before March 2020, zero starting in April 2020 and by 1/4 for
March 2020 (reflecting the March 23th timing of the Fed’s announcement). In the simpler, post-
1970 monthly model, we multiply the squared unemployment rate by the same discrete variable.
For the post-1970 weekly model, we multiply the squared unemployment rate by a weekly dummy
that equals one until the week ending March 21, 2020, ½ the next week, and 0 thereafter. In other
models, we made analogous adjustments based on the May 12th start of Fed purchases of corporate
bond ETFs and found the fit of these models were less than the announcement-based models.
The second change made to estimate the impacts of Covid and Fed corporate bond facilities
was to add Covid-shock dummy variables. In the monthly model, we add a Covid dummy variable
equal to 1 since March 2020, and two lags of its first difference (essentially one-time shock
variables for April and May). In the weekly model, add a Covid dummy variable equal to 1 since
the week ending March 13 plus the current and 12 lags of its first difference (essentially one-time
shock variables for April and May). Both adjustments essentially allow the pandemic to have an
effect ahead of its effect on the unemployment rate (which tends to lag a little). In an error
correction framework, a short-run shock’s effect will partially wear off each week, which, as will
be shown later, generally fits the time series movement of the spread. With these adjustments, the
27
models continue to yield significant and unique long-run relationships that have similar
coefficients to the pre-Covid estimates shown earlier (see Tables 1-3), with sensible short-run
models that display significant error-correction and do not have serially correlated residuals.
While these adjustments are far from ideal—which would require more observations that are not
yet available—they do provide some perspective on the spread during the era marked by the Covid
pandemic and Fed interventions in the corporate bond market.11 In particular, the timing of the
Fed intervention and the importance of adjusting the baseline models to enable them to work well
post-Covid imply that the Fed’s intervention has fundamentally altered the behavior of the Baa-
Treasury spread.
The models with the adjustments each yield a long-run estimated equilibrium spread, with
the Covid dummies essentially controlling for liquidity effects from the pandemic. Using the full
sample (through the end of July 2020) coefficients on the squared unemployment terms, Figures 6
and 7 plot the implied, cyclical effect that the announced Fed corporate bond interventions had on
the Baa-Treasury spread for the two monthly and the weekly models, respectively. From the
monthly models, the peak effects are in April, reaching 3.9 percent in the model using data back
to the Great Depression versus a smaller 2.2 peak effect from the monthly model estimated since
May 1971. On the one hand, the longer sample could yield more accurate estimates than the short-
sample estimation if the splicing of the unemployment rate is accurate and if the adjustments to
the econometric framework adequately address pre-1971 regime shifts over the 1929-2020 sample
period. On the other hand, the longer sample model could suffer from possible measurement error
11 The timing effects of the Fed intervention that are embodied in model 6 accord with daily data on the Baa-Treasury
spread (available since 1986) in that the daily spread rises sharply in early and mid-March, and then peaks on March
23, when the Fed announced the corporate facilities. In related work in progress, we find a similar pattern for spread
between yields on Baa-rated municipal and the 10-year Treasury bond, except that the muni spread peaks on April 9,
when the Fed announced it would buy municipal bonds by creating its Municipal Liquidity Facility.
28
from splicing unemployment rate series or misspecification from omitting other structural
differences across the earlier and later parts of the sample. It is unclear which model is more
accurate. Accordingly, considering and monitoring the accuracy of both models will likely be
informative, and the two lines in Figure 7 provide upper and lower estimates of the cyclical effect
of the Fed’s announcement of new corporate bond facilities. Estimates from the preferred monthly
model (model 6, Table 2) imply a peak effect of 3.9 percent occurring in the second business week
in May with the effect tailing off to about 1.7 percent at the end of July 2020. It is unclear, however,
how much these estimates track the effects from shifts in liquidity versus solvency risk. With these
qualifications in mind, these estimated effects in Figures 7 and 8 are notable and seem
reasonable—being on the order of those calculated by Duca and Murphy (2013) for what such a
facility could have done in the Great Recession, with an estimated impact of about 1 full percentage
point on real GDP. One difference is that the Duca and Murphy (2013) estimates include implied
default and liquidity effects by using the gap between the actual spread and a specified cap.
6.5. Gauging Fed Bond Market Intervention Effects on the Macroeconomy
To examine the impact of the Fed’s corporate bond programs on the real macro-economy,
we examine two types of evidence. First, we use the estimated impact of the programs on bond
spreads with the effect of bond spreads on the output gap in the recently revised Federal Reserve
Board Model of the U.S. economy (FRBUS) described by LaForte (2018). In the FRBUS model,
the equity risk premium is mainly driven by movements in the spread between yields on S&P BB-
rated corporate and the 10-year Treasury bond. This spread is equivalent to our Moody’s based
Baa-Treasury spread.12 Converting the monthly model estimates plotted in Figure 6 into quarterly
averages, the announced interventions lowered the Baa-Treasury spread by 2.99 and 1.93
12 The FRBUS system models the bond risk spread mainly as a function of the output gap and random shocks, the
former effects being similar to our modeling the Baa-Treasury spread as driven by the unemployment rate.
29
percentage points in 2020:q2 using the longer and shorter samples, respectively.
In the FRBUS model, the spread between yields on investment-grade corporate and 10-
year Treasury bond yields affects the real economy via three main channels. First, a higher spread
depresses stock prices by pushing up the equity risk premium. In addition, a higher spread raises
the user cost of capital, thereby depressing business investment, and pushes up spreads of home
mortgage over long-term Treasury interest rates, thereby lowering residential investment.
To assess the impact of the corporate bond facilities on real GDP, we ran simulations of
the FRBUS model under the assumptions of an inertial Taylor Rule and that the effective zero
lower bound on the federal funds rate would be binding throughout the forecast period. Using
publicly available inputs, these assumptions yield a baseline. Alternative assumptions for the BBB
-10-year Treasury spread are generated by assuming the counterfactual that the Fed corporate bond
programs were not implemented. Each of the three estimated models imply different monthly
paths for the equilibrium spread, which for simplicity we assume would have immediately affected
the actual spread absent the PMCCF and SMCCF. The implies quarterly average higher levels of
the spread for 2020:q1 and 2002:q2, which are augmented with a 2020:q3 level equal to the July
2020 equilibrium spread that is assumed to persist throughout the forecast period.
This exercise produces noticeably lower paths for real GDP than the baseline that translate
into more negative real output gaps (scaled by potential real GDP), which are reported in Table 4.
After four quarters (2021:q2), real GDP is 0.6 to 0.9 percentage points lower, with the largest effect
in the monthly model estimated from 1929 to 2020 and the smallest effect in the monthly model
estimated from 1971-2020, with the ranking of the relative GDP effects matching the relative
effects on the Baa-Treasury interest rate spread. After 6 quarters, the magnitudes grow, ranging
from 1.1 to 1.7 percentage points, with an even larger range between 1.6 to 2.5 p.p. after 8 quarters.
30
Figure 7: Monthly Model Estimates Suggest a Substantial Cyclical Effect of the
Announced Fed Intervention on the Corporate-Treasury Spread
(NBER recessions are shaded. Sources: Moody’s, Federal Reserve, and authors’ calculations)
Figure 8: Weekly Model Estimates Suggest a Substantial Cyclical Effect of the
Announced Fed Intervention on the Corporate-Treasury Spread
(NBER recessions are shaded. Sources: Moody’s, Federal Reserve, and authors’ calculations)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Percent
Implied Absolute Cyclical Reduction
in BaaTR Spread, from Model
estimated Nov. 1929-July 2020
Implied Absolute Cyclical Reduction
in BaaTR Spread from Model
estimated May 1971-July 2020
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Implied Absolute Cyclical
Reduction in BaaTR Spread
from Model estimated
May 1971-July 2020
Percent
31
Model \ Forecast Period 4 quarters 6 quarters 8 quarters
Monthly, 1929-2020 -0.9 -1.7 -2,5
Monthly, 1971-2020 -0.6 -1.1 -1.6
Weekly, 1929-2020 -0.8 -1.4 -2.1
Table 4: Counterfactual Simulations of Real GDP Absent Fed Corporate Bond Programs
(Source: authors’ calculations and simulations using the FRBUS model)
One concern with these estimates and calculations is that default risk is endogenous to the
cycle, raising doubts about using corporate spreads. To address this general concern with bond
spreads, Gilchrist and Zakrajsek (2012) use microdata and estimates to extract the impact of default
risk on investment-grade spreads, yielding their estimates of an excess bond premium (EBP). Note
that the raw, investment grade spread (the “GZ spread) from which they derive the EBP moves
very closely with the Baa-Treasury spread used in our study over a common 1973-2020 sample.
The authors demonstrate the leading indicator properties of the EBP for real GDP, and later in a
study with Favara, et al. (2018), they show how the EBP is useful for forecasting recessions.
According to their 2012 study, a 20-basis point rise in the EBP (about a one-standard deviation
shock) lowers real GDP by about 0.4 percent after four and eight quarters. Note that these estimates
include the cushioning effects of a normal, countercyclical monetary policy response.
To draw upon their findings, we empirically model the EBP (available Jan. 1973 – present)
using the posted monthly updates to it that are described in Favara, et al (2016). One difference
with the Baa-Treasury spread is that the EBP is stationary. Accordingly, we adjust our framework
to model the EBP as a function of changes in the unemployment rate, which are also stationary.
Using the SIC for lag selection on the EBP, we estimated the EBP on the month t-2 change in the
unemployment rate and on t-1 to t-5 lags of EBP over the sample July 1973 – February 2020. This
model minimized the SIC across different lags of the EBP and yielded clean model residuals.
32
In line with our earlier estimates of the level of the Baa-Treasury spread, the t-2 change in
the unemployment rate is positively and significantly related to the excess bond premium as
indicated in model 1 in Table 3. This finding accords with the results for modeling the level of the
spread as a positive function of the level of the unemployment rate. It is also consistent with the
FRBUS model, which specifies the BBB-Treasury yield spread as a negative function of the output
gap—which is negatively related to the unemployment rate, implying a positive relationship
between unemployment and the spread. Model 2 re-estimates Model 1 over the full sample and
finds the coefficient on the unemployment rate falls by over 70 percent in magnitude and becomes
insignificant without any control for the Fed’s corporate bond program or the March 2020 onset
of the Covid pandemic in the U.S. Model 3 re-estimates Model 2 adding a single Covid-pandemic
impact dummy (DCovid = 1 in March 2020 and 0, otherwise), and the unemployment rate is
insignificant as in Model 2. Model 4 is also estimated over the full sample but follows our earlier
level specifications in interacting the unemployment rate with the regime dummy FedxBond and
includes a Covid impact dummy. The t-2 change in the unemployment returns to being significant
with a coefficient near that of Model 1. This pattern of results supports the view that the
announcement of the Fed’s corporate bond interventions stopped the reinforcing feedback effects
of unemployment on corporate bond risk premia.
Models 1 and 4 imply that the 8.8 percentage point rise in unemployment between 2020:q1
and 2020:q2 would have boosted the EBP by about 1.15 (0.132 coefficient x 8.8) from 2021:q1
levels in the absence of the Fed intervention. Applying Gilchrist and Zakrajsek (2012) estimates
that a 0.2 rise in EBP lowers real GDP by a little more than 0.4 percent after four quarters implies
that the announcement of the Fed corporate bond program prevented a further 2.3 percentage point
decline in the quarterly level of real GDP in 2021:q2. The magnitude of the EBP effect on GDP
33
is about two to three times that implied by the monthly models of the level of the Baa-Treasury
spread. One reason for the difference is that the impact of bond risk premia on the real economy
is limited to particular channels in the FRBUS model, whereas it is not similarly circumscribed in
the approach used by Gilchrist and Zakrajsek (2012) to estimate EBP effects on GDP.13
7. Conclusion
The current Covid-19 induced financial crisis and recession has created some
unprecedented challenges for the Fed. The pandemic induced declines in consumption, investment
and labor hours were magnified by government mandated lockdowns in the second quarter of
2020. A key component of the amplification mechanism of negative shocks in an earlier dramatic
crisis and depression, 1929-33, was the financial accelerator which followed the financial collapse
associated with four serious banking panics. The consequent decline in net worth and collateral by
households and firms led to defaults, bankruptcies and a collapse in credit. In the Covid-19
downturn a similar dynamic has occurred as the corporate sector was hit by a collapse in sales,
orders and a disrupted supply chain. This stress is evident in a spike in the Baa-10-year Treasury
bond spread, a well- known measure of credit risk.
In response to the crisis, the Fed extended many of its facilities developed in the GFC of
2007-2008 to restore the plumbing of the financial system and to bolster the banking system. In
the current crisis the Fed has added new facilities to shore up the corporate, municipal and small
to medium business sectors. It was able to do this because of explicit Treasury guarantees against
credit losses, which were not made in the GFC. A key component to the effort was the creation of
the primary and secondary corporate credit facilities that were intended to support the issuance of,
13 The difference may also partly owe to the EBP being a more exogenous measure of the impact of risk premia shocks,
which was a big motivation for Gilchrist and Zakrajsek’s (2012) study.
34
and trading in, corporate bonds, respectively, and at non-crisis spreads over Treasury yields. The
announcement of these facilities were associated with halting a rapid rise in the Baa-Treasury bond
spread that was in-train in March 2020 at the height of the crisis—and seven weeks ahead of the
first actual Fed purchase of corporate bond ETFs. As a result, rather than continuing to surge, this
and other investment-grade corporate spreads peaked at levels seen in more normal recessions,
and the spreads have subsequently ebbed.
In this paper we model the corporate Baa-Treasury spread using both monthly data from a
long sample beginning in the 1920s and weekly data over a shorter sample since 1971, accounting
for the major historical credit market shocks that occurred. Movements in the spread are highly
correlated with the business cycles, proxied by the square of the unemployment rate.
Using this model, we show that the Fed intervention in March 2020 largely mitigated the
spike in March 2020. Moreover we show, based on the estimated effects of bond spread shocks in
both the FRBUS model and the model of Gilchrist and Zakrajsek (2012), that the Fed’s corporate
debt intervention prevented an even larger decline in real GDP, ranging from 0.6 to 2-¼ percent
four quarters later. Indeed, the corporate bond facility seems to have been highly successful, so
far, in mitigating the financial accelerator channel that was so damaging in the GFC and the Great
Depression.
The Fed’s corporate debt interventions have supplemented the Fed’s other liquidity support
policies and its expansionary monetary policy actions. However, this new facility—along with the
new municipal bond and business loan programs—marks a major departure from earlier Fed
practice which only provided support to the banking system and, since 2007, other financial
institutions and markets in crises.14 Moreover, the program could induce the non-financial sector
14 From its inception through the mid-1930s, the Fed conducted open market operations in bankers’ acceptances. Later,
in the GFC, it intervened in commercial paper. In both cases, its actions were confined to the money market, consistent
35
to depend on Fed support in future crises or downturns. In other words, despite providing upfront
benefits, together the new corporate facilities are not exactly a free lunch and their true costs and
hence net benefit will depend on how they are eventually unwound and the extent of the moral
hazard effects they induce.
In this regard, an important question to be considered is--had these new policies not been
implemented would the Fed’s other more orthodox monetary and LOLR policies have done as
good a job? This may help answer the question whether the benefits of this new corporate debt
support policy exceed the costs.
with the traditional central bank objective of maintaining adequate liquidity to prevent and ameliorate financial panics.
The recent corporate bond market interventions go beyond that traditional lender of last resort role.
36
Table 1: Nine Decade Sample Models of the Baa-Treasury Spread, 1929-2020
Long-Run Equilibrium: BaaTR*t = α0 + α1 URt
2 + α2 PennCentt x URt2 + α3PreAccordt + α4CFMAt
Annual (1931-2019) Monthly (1929:11-20:02) Monthly (1929:11-20:07)
Model No. 1 2 3i 4 5 6i
Constant 0.9368 1.0701 0.9601 1.0416 0.9795 1.0462
URt2 0.0070** 0.0037** 0.0067** 0.0054** 0.0068** 0.0054**
(10.10) (4.36) (9.98) (8.57) (9.83) (8.63)
URt2xPennCentt 0.0149** 0.0178** 0.0143** 0.0141** 0.0132** 0.0142**
(5.97) (7.00) (5.49) (5.89) (4.92) (6.02)
PreAccordt 0.4373** 0.5317** 0.3698* 0.4228** 0.3328 0.4281**
(2.69) (3.12) (2.17) (2.70) (1.90) (2.77)
CFMAt 0.8072** 0.6281** 0.8468** 0.7946** 0.9165** 0.7822**
(5.77) (4.39) (5.77) (5.90) (6.12) (5.89)
unique coint. Yes** Yes** Yes** Yes** Yes** Yes**
vec. # lags 1 1 6 6 6 6
trace no vec. 76.38** 73.02** 92.48** 89.81** 89.19** 92.00**
trace only 1 41.04 30.37 36.12 24.62 34.94 24.71
Short-Run: ΔBaaTRt = β0 + β1ECt-1 + ∑ni=1 β2iΔBaaTRt-i + ∑n
i=1β3iΔURt-i2
+ ∑ni=1β4i Δ[PennCentt-i xURt-i
2] + ∑ni=1β5iΔPreAccordt-i + ∑ n
i=1β6iΔCFMAt + ΩXt + μt
ECt-1, -0.216 -0.447** -0.032* -0.052** -0.033* -0.054**
(1.24) (3.77) (2.19) (4.46) (2.24) (4.63)
annual adjust. speed: 22% 45% 33% 47% 33% 52%
BaaTRt-1 0.480** 0.415** 0.212** 0.287** 0.209** 0.288**
(2.81) (2.95) (6.30) (10.69) (6.22) (10.74)
ΔURt-i2 -0.002 -0.003** 0.003 0.001 0.026** 0.001
(1.74) (2.70) (3.50) (1.26) (3.49) (1.29)
Δ[UR2xPennCent]t-1 -0.014* -0.010* 0.006 0.007** 0.006 0.007**
(2.43) (2.34) (1.86) (2.69) (1.70) (2.65)
ΔPreAccordt-1 0.053 0.088 0.018 0.029 0.020 0.029
(0.08) (0.18) (0.09) (0.19) (0.10) (0.19)
ΔCFMAt-1 0.309 0.619 -0.006 -0.006 -0.006 -0.002
(0.52) (1.41) (0.03) (0.04) (0.03) (0.01)
QE1932t 1.836** 2.113** 2.106**
(5.96) (18.01) (17.97)
USBankFailt 1.647** 1.646**
(14.47) (14.47)
37
BkCrisis33t-1 0.708** 0.710**
(5.54) (5.56)
DGold34t -0.533 -0.560** -0.557**
(1.24) (3.40) (3.39)
DLehmant 1.790** 1.429** 1.443**
(4.49) (9.01) (9.10)
Covid t 1.287**
(8.18)
Covid t-1 -0.252
(1.57)
Covid t-2 0.137
(0.83)
Constant -0.001 -0.060 -0.001 -0.001 0.000 -0.002
(0.01) (1.37) (0.29) (0.28) (0.05) (0.41)
Adj. R2 0.059 0.477 0.100 0.443 0.100 0.462
S.E. 0.528 0.393 0.200 0.157 0.203 0.157
VEC Auto (1) 24.64 27.40 23.92 22.01 23.61 21.52
VEC Auto (2) 23.66 13.60 23.58 27.81 22.98 27.22
VEC Auto (4) 9.81 12.86 44.38** 23.66 45.31** 23.81
Notes: Absolute t-statistics are in parentheses and ** (*) denoted significant at the 99% (95%) confidence
level. (i) Coefficients for the UR2 terms are multiplied by (1 – Corp) in models 3 and 6. (ii) Absolute t-
statistics in parentheses. (iii) Long-run: Maximum likelihood estimates of the long-run equilibrium
relationship using a two-equation system with at most one cointegrating vector. (iv) ECt-1 = BaaTRt-1 -
α0 + α1 URt-12 + α2 PennCentt -1 x URt-1
2 + α3PreAccordt-1 + α4CFMAt-1. (v) First difference terms of
elements in the long-run cointegrating vector. (vi) Lag lengths chosen to minimize the AIC criterion. (vii)
significance of the trace and VEC Auto statistics reflects lag length and if a time trend is included in the
long-run.
38
Table 2: Half-Century Sample Models of the Baa-Treasury Spread, 1971-2020
Long-Run Equilibrium: BaaTR*t = α0 + α1 URt
2 + α2CFMAt
Weekly Monthly
5/7/71-02/28/20 5/71-7/20 May 1971-Feb. 2020 5/71-7/20
Model No. 1 2 3i 4 5 6i
Constant 1.3682 1.3646 1.3774 1.3921 1.4689 1.5021
URt2 0.0136** 0.0137** 0.0135** 0.0133** 0.0121** 0.0116**
(4.29) (4.42) (4.36) (3.48) (3.59) (3.21)
CFMAt 0.7394** 0.7381** 0.7457** 0.7252** 0.6540** 0.6351**
(5.23) (5.34) (5.38) (4.48) (4.57) (4.17)
unique coint. Yes** Yes** Yes** Yes** Yes** Yes**
vec. # lags 12 12 12 6 6 6
trace no vec. 56.16** 59.07** 59.46** 41.27** 41.27** 43.89**
trace only 1 9.15 9.71 10.01 12.79 12.79 12.11
Short-Run: ΔBaaTRt = β0 + β1ECt-1 + ∑ni=1 β2iΔBaaTRt-i + ∑n
i=1β3iΔURt-i2 + ∑ n
i=1β3iΔCFMAt + ΩXt + μt
ECt-1, -0.017** -0.017** -0.017** -0.075** -0.086* -0.083**
(4.40) (4.57) (4.54) (4.28) (5.23) (4.94)
annual adjust. speed: 58% 56% 58% 61% 66% 64%
BaaTRt-1 0.225** 0.231** 0.233** 0.419** 0.391** 0.377**
(11.26) (11.88) (11.91) (9.95) (9.85) (9.28)
ΔURt-12 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.006* 0.007*
(0.58) (1.06) (1.05) (1.44) (1.95) (2.11)
ΔCFMAt-1 0.020 0.019 0.018 -0.014 -0.008 -0.007
(0.22) (0.21) (0.21) (0.09) (0.05) (0.04)
StockCrash87t 0.757** 0.759**
(8.61) (8.63)
Sept11t 0.257** 0.257**
(2.94) (2.94)
USDGradet 0.284** 0.284**
(3.24) (3.24)
DLehmant 0.360** 0.360** 1.430** 1.443**
(4.11) (4.11) (8.50) (8.56)
Covid t-1, -0.049
(1.72)
39
ΔCovid t 0.672** 1.264
(7.24) (7.61)
ΔCovid t-1 0.244* -0.324
(2.60) (1.87)
ΔCovid t-2 -0.219* 0.209
(2.30) (1.16)
Constant -0.000 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001 -0.003 -0.005
(0.02) (0.39) (0.43) (0.09) (0.47) (0.67)
Adj. R2 0.074 0.111 0.157 0.172 0.266 0.318
S.E. 0.089 0.087 0.087 0.176 0.165 0.166
VEC Auto (1) 5.53 2.90 3.40 7.43 12.05 9.70
VEC Auto (2) 2.33 7.13 6.18 8.79 3.33 9.19
VEC Auto (4) 9.06 13.12 9.75 3.11 6.43 14.04
Notes: Absolute t-statistics are in parentheses and ** (*) denoted significant at the 99% (95%) confidence
level. (i) Coefficients for the UR2 terms are multiplied by (1 – Corp) in models 3 and 6. (ii) Absolute t-
statistics in parentheses. (iii) Long-run: Maximum likelihood estimates of the long-run equilibrium
relationship using a two-equation system with at most one cointegrating vector. (iv) ECt-1 = BaaTRt-1 -
α0 + α1 URt-12 + α2CFMAt-1. (v) First difference terms of elements in the long-run cointegrating vector.
(vi) Lag lengths chosen to minimize the AIC criterion. (vi) significance of the trace and VEC Auto
statistics reflects lag length and if a time trend is included in the long-run.
40
Table 3: Modeling the Excess Bond Premium, 1973-2020
EBPt = α0 + α2 ΔURt-2 + ∑ αiEBPt-i+ α7 DCovidt
Sample: PreCovid Full Full Full
1973:06- 1973:06- 1973:06- 1973:06-
2020:02 2020:07 2020:07 2020:07
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Constant 0.007 0.006 0.004 0.050
(0.68) (0.55) (0.38) (0.49)
ΔURt-2 0.132* 0.024 -0.026 0.133*
x FedxBond in Model 4 (2.16) (1.08) (1.20) (2.16)
EBPt-1, 0.702** 0.705** 0.704** 0.705**
(16.81) (16.86) (17.29) (17.39)
EBPt-2, 0.236** 0.226** 0.229** 0.224**
(4.60) (4.40) (4.59) (4.49)
EBPt-3, 0.055 0.055 0.058 0.041
(1.05) (1.03) (1.12) (0.81)
EBPt-4, 0.052 0.065 0.061 0.063
(1.02) (1.26) (1.22) (1.27)
EBPt-5, -0.162** -0.152** -0.150** -0.150**
(3.87) (3.61) (3.65) (3.67)
DCovidt 1.358** 1.337**
(5.67) (5.60)
Adj. R2 0.819 0.806 0.817 0.818
S.E. 0.238 0.246 0.239 0.238
LM (1) 0.72 0.93 0.01 0.00
LM (2) 3.35 2.84 0.03 0.00
LM (4) 3.57 3.16 1.28 2.09
Q (24) 31.75 28.41 31.02 31.75
Notes: ** (*) significant at the 99% (95%) confidence level.
41
References
Agarwal, Sumit, Jacqueline Barrett, Crystal Cun, and Mariacristina De Nardi. 2010. "The Asset-
Backed Securities Markets, the Crisis, and TALF." Economic Perspectives 34 (4): 101-
15.
Bagehot, Walter. 1873. Lombard Street: A Description of the Money Market. London: Henry S.
King & Company.
Bernanke, Ben S. 1983. Non-Monetary Effects of Financial Crises in the Propagation of the
Great Depression.” American Economic Review 71, 257-276.
Bernanke, Ben. 1995. "The Macroeconomics of the Great Depression: A Comparative
Approach." Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 27 (1): 1-28.
Bernanke, Ben S. 2018. “The Real Effects of Disrupted Credit: Evidence from the Global
Financial Crisis.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 49 (2): 251-342.
Bernanke, Ben, and Mark Gertler. 1990. "Financial Fragility and Economic Performance."
Quarterly Journal of Economics 105 (1), 87-114.
Bernanke, Ben S., Mark Gertler, and Simon Gilchrist. 1996. “The Financial Accelerator and the
Flight to Quality.” Review of Economics and Statistics 78 (1): 1-15.
Bernanke, Ben, Mark Gertler, and Simon Gilchrist. 1999. “The Financial Accelerator in a
Quantitative Business Cycle Framework.” In Handbook of Macroeconomics, Vol. 1C,
edited by J. B. Taylor and M. Woodford, 1341–93. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, North-
Holland.
Bolton, Patrick and Martin Oehmke. 2015. “Should Derivatives Be Privileged in Bankruptcy?”
Journal of Finance 70 (6): 2353-94.
Bordo, Michael D. 2008. "An Historical Perspective on the Crisis of 2007-2008.” NBER
42
Working Paper 14569.
Bordo, Michael D. 2014. "Rules for a Lender of Last Resort: An Historical Perspective." Journal
of Economic Dynamics and Control 49 (C): 126-134.
Bordo, Michael D., John V. Duca, and Christoffer Koch. 2016. "Economic Policy Uncertainty
and the Credit Channel: Aggregate and Bank Level U.S. Evidence over Several
Decades.” Journal of Financial Stability 26, 90-106.
Bordo, Michael D., and Christopher M. Meissner. 2016. “Fiscal and Financial Crises.” NBER
Working Paper 22059.
Bordo, Michael D., and Sinha, Arunima. Forthcoming. “The 1932 Federal Reserve Open Market
Purchases as a Precedent for Quantitative Easing.” Journal of Money, Credit, and
Banking.
Bordo, Michael D., and David C. Wheelock. 2011. “The Promise and Performance of the Federal
Reserve as Lender of Last Resort 1914-1933.” NBER Working Paper 16763.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2020. “The Impact of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic on The
Employment Situation for June 2020.” July 2, 2020. https://www.bls.gov/cps/employment-
situation-covid19-faq-june-2020.pdf
Calomiris, Charles W. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, R. Glenn Hubbard, Allan H. Meltzer, and Hal S.
Scott. 2017. “Establishing Credible Rules for Fed Emergency Lending.” Journal of
Financial Economic Policy 9 (3): 260-67.
Cleary, Aisling, Joyce Kwok, and Rob Valletta. 2009. “New Highs in Unemployment Insurance
Claims.” FRBSF Economic Letter, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, September.
DiMartino, Danielle, John V. Duca, and Jessica Renier. 2009. “Fed Confronts Financial Crisis
43
By Expanding Its Role As Lender of Last Resort,” Economic Letter, Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas, February/March 2009.
<http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2009/el0902.pdf>
Duca, John V. 1999. “What Credit Market Indicators Tell Us,” Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Economic and Financial Policy Review 1999:q3: 2-13.
https://www.dallasfed.org/~/media/documents/research/efr/1999/efr9903a.pdf
Duca, John V. 2013a. “Did the Commercial Paper Funding Facility Prevent a Great Depression
Style Money Market Meltdown?” Journal of Financial Stability 9: 747-758.
Duca, John V. 2013b. “The Money Market Meltdown of the Great Depression,” Journal of
Money, Credit, and Banking 45: 493-504.
Duca, John V. 2013c. “The Subprime Mortgage Crisis,” Federal Reserve System History
Gateway Essay, November 2013,
http://stage.federalreservehistory.org/Events/DetailView/55
Duca, John V. 2017. “The Great Depression Versus the Great Recession in the U.S.: How
Fiscal, Monetary, and Financial Policies Compare.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and
Control 81: 32-49.
Duca, John V., and David C. Ling. 2020. “The Other (Commercial) Real Estate Boom and Bust:
the Effects of Risk Premia and Regulatory Capital Arbitrage.” Journal of Banking and
Finance 112(C):
Duca, John V., John Muellbauer, and Anthony Murphy. 2010. “Housing Markets and the
Financial Crisis of 2007-2009: Lessons for the Future,” Journal of Financial Stability 6:
203-17.
Duca, John V. and Anthony Murphy. 2013. “Would a Bagehot Style Corporate Bond Backstop
44
Have Helped Counter the Great Recession?” Economics Letters 119(3): 351-53.
Edwards, Sebastian. 2018. American Default: The Untold Story of FDR, the Supreme Court, and
the Battle over Gold. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Favara, Giovanni, Simon Gilchrist, Kurt F. Lewis, and Egon Zakrajsek (2016). "Recession Risk
and the Excess Bond Premium," FEDS Notes. Washington: Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, April 8, 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.17016/2380-7172.1739.
Fisher, Irving. 1933. “The Debt Deflation Theory of Great Depressions.” Econometrica 1 (4):
337 - 357
Freixas, Xavier, Curzio Giannini, Glenn Hoggarth, and Farouk Soussa. 1999. “Lender of Last
Resort: a Review of the Literature.” Financial Stability Review 7, Bank of England. 151-
67.
Freixas, Xavier, Bruno M. Parigi and Jean-Charles Rochet. 2004. “The Lender of Last Resort: A
Twenty-First Century Approach.” Journal of the European Economic Association 2 (6):
1085-1115.
Friedman, M., Schwartz, A.J., 1963. A Monetary History of the United States 1867-1960.
Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Gilchrist, Simon and Egon Zakrajsek. 2012. “Credit Spreads and Business Cycle Fluctuations.”
American Economic Review 102 (4): 1692-1720.
Gorton, Gary and Andrew Metrick. 1999. “The Federal Reserve and Panic Prevention: The Roles
of Financial Regulation and Lender of Last Resort.” Journal of Economic Perspectives
13 (4): 45-64.
Gorton, Gary, and Andrew Metrick. 2013. "The Federal Reserve and Panic Prevention: The
Roles of Financial Regulation and Lender of Last Resort." Journal of Economic
Perspectives 27 (4): 45-64.
45
Humphries, Thomas M. 1989. “Lender of Last Resort: The Concept in History.” Federal Reserve
Bank of Richmond Economic Review March/April: 8-16.
Jaffee, Dwight M. 1975. “Cyclical Variations in the Risk Structure of Interest Rates.” Journal of
Monetary Economics 1 (3): 309-25.
Johansen, Soren. 1995. Likelihood-Based Inference in Cointegrated Vector Autoregressive
Models. New York: Oxford University Press.
Judge, Kathryn. 2016. “The First Year: The Role of a Modern Lender of Last Resort.” Columbia
Law Review 116 (3): 843-926.
Kaufman, George G. 1991. “Lender of Last Resort: A Contemporary Perspective.” Journal of
Financial Services Research 5 (2): 95-110.
LaForte, Jean-Philippe. 2018. "Overview of the Changes to the FRB/US Model." Figure 3. Feds Notes.
December 7. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/overview-of-the-changes-
to-the-frb-us-model-2018-20181207.htm
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/overview-of-the-changes-to-the-frb-us-
model-2018-accessible-20181207.htm#fig3
Levy, Mickey D. 2020. “The Fed’s Aggressive Response to the Crisis: What’s Next?”
Economics Macro News, Berenberg Capital Markets,
Mishkin, Frederic S. 1991. “Asymmetric Information and Financial Crises: A Historical
Perspective.” In Financial Markets and Financial Crises, pp. 69-108. R. Glenn Hubbard
(ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mishkin, Frederic S. and Eugene N. White. 2002. “U.S. Stock Market Crashes and Their
Aftermath: Implications for Monetary Policy.” NBER Working Paper 8992.
Moody’s Investor Service. 2011. “Corporate Default and Recovery Rates, 1920-2010.” Special
Report. Global Corporate Finance.
46
Powell, Jerome H. 2020. “Current Economic Issues.” Speech at the Peterson Institute for
International Economics, Washington, D.C., May 13, 2020.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/powell20200513a.htm
Stout, Lynn A. 2011. “Derivatives and the Legal Origin of the 2008 Credit Crisis.” Harvard
Business Law Review 1 (1): 1–38.
Tallman, Ellis and Eugene White. 2020. “Why Was There No Banking Panic in 1920-1921? The
Federal Reserve Banks and the Recession.” Unpublished manuscript, Federal Reserve
Bank of Cleveland and Rutgers University.
Tucker, Paul. 2014. “The Lender of Last Resort and Modern Central Banking: Principles and
Reconstruction.” In Re-thinking the Lender of Last Resort. BIS Papers No 79. Basel:
Bank for International Settlements.
47
Appendix A: Consistently Tracking Unemployment Since the Late 1920s
Our primary source of data on the unemployment rate is the headline, U-3 series from by
the BLS, available on a monthly basis since January 1948 and on an annual basis since 1929.
Definitional differences make inconsistent pre- and post-1943 readings, with differences in
monthly sources before 1948 adding additional complications for tracking monthly
unemployment. This appendix discusses how we constructed consistent measures of the
unemployment from available data sources. In creating monthly estimates, we tried to adjust pre-
1948 data from non-BLS sources to be in line with monthly BLS data that start in January 1948.
A1. Splicing Several Series
From 1929 to 1939 two series overlap. These are the annual unemployment rate from the
BLS and a monthly series (April 1929-December 1939) from the Conference Board. The annual
averages of the latter series are notably below those of the BLS data. We interpolate the annual
differences into monthly adjustments, which we add to the Conference Board monthly series to
yield a monthly series from April 1929 to December 1939. From January 1940 to December 1947
our source of monthly data is the Census’s Monthly Earnings and Employment Report, which
overlap with the post-1948 BLS series. For the first three months of 1948, the Census series
average 0.7 percentage point below that of the BLS series. We added this difference to the January
1940-December 1947 readings of the Census series. Connecting these three segments yields our
basic monthly series, which spans April 1929 through the present.
A2. Adjusting 1933-43 Data for Omitting Public Works’ Employees (Darby, 1976)
As stressed by Darby (1976), annual statistics from the BLS on the unemployment rate are
understated by the exclusion of employees in New Deal public works projects from calculations
of the number of employed and the workforce. Using data on such excluded workers, Darby (1976)
provides annual statistics corrected for this omission, and notes that the effects were quite large in
48
the mid-and late 1930s. We can directly adjust our annual spliced series by subtracting Darby’s
implied annual net effects for 1933-43, which avoids the prior splicing of endpoints.
Our monthly spliced series was adjusted in several steps. First, we used Darby’s annual
estimated effect as the effect for the second quarter of a calendar year reflecting that the timing of
effects may be slightly skewed to the first half of a calendar year owing to budgets operating on a
fiscal year basis (q4 of year t-1 through q3 of year t). Then we used a cubic spline to interpolate
from annual to monthly effects, which were then used to adjust the spliced monthly series. As
shown in Figure A-1 the difference between the Darby-adjusted and unadjusted series is notable
in the Great Depression years. Consistent with Darby’s (1976) point about the inconsistencies
between unemployment statistics across the Great Depression and the post-WWII period, we find
stronger evidence of cointegration and a stronger linkage between the corporate Baa-Treasury
Figure A-1: Adjusting the Headline Unemployment Rate for Omissions of
Special Public Works’ Employees During the Great Depression
(Sources: BLS, NBER Macro-History database, and authors’ calculations.)
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Darby
Adjusted
Unemp.
Rate
Percent
Unemp.
Rate Not
Adjusted
for Great
Depression
Definitional
Problem
49
yield spread and unemployment using the Darby-adjusted series than using the unadjusted series.
A.3. Adjustments to the Unemployment Rate for Misclassified Unemployed Workers
There is general concern among economists that, since March 2020, the headline (U-3)
unemployment rate has been under-stated by the misclassification of unemployed workers who
were being paid to remain on company payrolls. Under the 2020 CARES Act, many small firms
qualified for forgivable loans aimed at covering business expenses during the Covid-19 Recession
if firms continued to pay and keep workers on their payrolls for 8 weeks. This incentive to retain
workers not on the job likely induced a large rise in the number of employed persons who had a
job but were not at work. For example, the number with a job but not at work ranged between
3.91 and 4.25 million in the month of May for the years 2016-2019, but was much higher (8.35
million) in May 2020.
The household survey also solicits explicit reasons for not being at work whilst employed
include vacation, illness, child-care problems, other family/personal obligations, labor disputes,
poor weather, maternity/paternity leave, school/training, and civic/military duty. There is an
“other category” entry, which saw outsized readings from March to July 2020 compared to the
same months in recent, prior years. This surge plausibly includes people who were absent due to
temporary, pandemic-related closures that were misclassified as employed but not working instead
of being classified as unemployed. The number of people who were not at work for “other reasons”
was around 0.9 million for most months in recent years, but jumped to as much as 8.1 million in
April 2020, before falling to 5.4 and then 2.8 million in May and June 2020, respectively.
The BLS provides an upper bound gauge of the misclassification effect assuming that all
of the number of employed people who were not at work for “other reasons” that exceeded its
average in recent years owed solely to misclassification, and assuming that all such people
expected to be recalled and were able to work. This series (URCov) likely provides a more accurate
50
gauge of unemployment, per se. However, insofar as the gap between the U-3 and URCov series
(see Figure A-2) mainly owes to government subsidies to business to maintain employment links,
the U-3 series may provide a more relevant gauge of how slack relates to cyclical default risk on
bonds. Consistent with this view, the long-spliced series using the post-1948 U-3 rate
outperformed that using the URCov series instead and for this reason, the analysis uses the URSp
series in monthly and annual regressions.
Figure A-2: Adjusting the Headline Unemployment Rate for Survey Misclassifications
(Source: BLS)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Percent
Sources: Moodys, NBER Macro-History database, BLS, and authors.
Unemployment Rate Adjusted for
Missclassification from the
Paycheck Protection Program
Official Headline (U-3)
Unemployment Rate
51
Appendix B: KPSS Stationarity Tests
(with time trend)
Annual (1929-2019)
Stationarity (bandwidth) Stationarity (bandwidth)
BaaTR 0.2095* (6) Δ BaaTR 0.0945 (18)
UR 0.1297+ (6) Δ UR 0.0421 (1)
Monthly (April 1929 – July 2020)
Stationarity (bandwidth) Stationarity (bandwidth)
BaaTR 0.4585** (25) Δ BaaTR 0.0157 (15)
UR 0.2892+ (25) Δ UR 0.0437 (15)
Weekly (January 1971 – August 7 2020)
Stationarity (bandwidth) Stationarity (bandwidth)
BaaTR 0.1349+ (40) Δ BaaTR 0.0145 (4)
UR 0.2157* (0) Δ UR 0.0363 (19)
Monthly (January 1973 – July 2020)
Stationarity (bandwidth) Stationarity (bandwidth)
EBP 0.0387 (17) Δ EBP 0.0118 (4)
UR 0.1353+ (40) Δ UR 0.0595 (6)
Notes: * and ** denote 95% and 99% significance levels, respectively. Lag lengths for the KPSS stationarity tests are
based on the Newey-West bandwidth selector using a Bartlett kernel for the spectral estimation method. The
combination of a significant KPSS stationary test statistic on the level of a variable (rejecting that it is stationary) and
a significant test statistic on its first difference (accepting it is stationary) is evidence against trend stationarity.
52
Appendix C: Post-Covid Long-Run Relationships
Long Sample, Pre Covid Monthly Model:
BaaTRt = 1.042 + 0.005 x URt2** + 0.014 [PennCentralt x URt
2]** (Monthly Model) (6)
(0.001) (0.002)
+ 0.423 PreAccordt** + 0.795 CFMAt
** Speed of adjustment: 0.47/year
(0.156) (0.135)
Long Sample, Covid-Adjusted Monthly Model:
BaaTRt = 1.046 + 0.005 x URt2** + 0.014 [PennCentralt x URt
2]** (Monthly Model) (10)
(0.001) (0.002)
+ 0.428 PreAccordt** + 0.782 CFMAt
** Speed of adjustment: 0.52/year
(0.155) (0.133)
Notes: Absolute standard errors are on parentheses. ** (*) significant at the 99% (95%) confidence
level.